Amber

Healthcare Bill is Tyrannical, Unconstitutional.

December 22, 2009 | healthcare

John David Lewis argues that the Obama/Reid Healthcare bill is, by nature, the essence of tyranny. His argument is that tyranny operates by proposing vague laws that are subject to interpretation by those in power…and that Obamacare is precisely that.

Consider one example today: H.R. 3962, the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act” recently passed by the House of Representatives. Even a summary perusal of its 1,990 pages shows an enormous scope for arbitrary definitions, applications, and regulations according to the decisions of unelected administrators. Here are a few passages to illustrate:

To determine what constitutes the “satisfaction of health care coverage participation requirements” under the 1974 ERISA rules, “the secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this part” (Sec. 421). Readers of the bill who try to discover what constitutes an “interim final rule” will find that this is up to the secretary — i.e., the bureaucrats — to determine.

Meanwhile, Tea Party advocates have established what they call the ‘”Tenth Amendment Foundation” to fight what they see as an encroachment by the Federal government into the rights of individuals. They are prepared to file lawsuits against the Healthcare bill, if it passes this week, suggesting it is unconstitutional:

The challenge is founded upon the argument that healthcare is not a right enshrined by the Constitution, and that by mandating health insurance for every American, Congress is overstepping the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

For one, they say, the commerce clause – which gives Congress powers to regulate commerce among states –does not give Congress the authority to regulate healthcare, which is about well-being.

The bill would not regulate any activity, per se, write former Justice Department lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey in a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “Simply being an American would trigger it.”

Moreover, legal critics of the bill say a tax on Americans who refuse to buy healthcare insurance violates the 16th Amendment, which regulates how government can raise and spend taxes – a critical link to how Americans perceive individual liberty in their personal and business lives.

“A ‘tax’ that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress’ authority,” write Messrs. Rivkin and Casey. “If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by ‘taxing’ anyone who doesn’t follow an order of any kind – whether to obtain healthcare insurance … or even eat your vegetables.”

This is the beginning of a long fight, I hope, that will stall this bill until it becomes obvious to even the Democrats who support it that it is bad for them, as well as the country. Ordinarily, I would say that if the Democrats want to commit suicide by forcing a bill that only the Democrats in Congress support (nationally, not even Democratic party members support this bill), I would say let them commit suicide…however, once the bill is passed, it will not be repealed. We are stuck with it…and that will cause us harm. How much harm is hard to judge, with a bill this size, and so vague…but the damage will, most likely, be great.